Other internal names have risen and fallen: Peter Orszag was viewed, for an early moment, as a likely successor; Jim Messina is also a candidate, though bad midterms would do him damage as well; Tom Daschle has the requisite stature and connections on the Hill; John Podesta, who has said he doesn't want the job, would represent a change of course.

Share this Article

Reader Comments (24)

Pages

1

No calls for Bipartisanship there Ben and suggest that this is a good opportunity for Obama to show his bipartisanship and hire someone who is middle/right of center?...If this were a R potus, all the Media Libs do is calls for "bipartisanship" in offices, judgeships, etc

Posted By: No calls for Bipartisanship there Ben and suggest that this is a good opportunity for Obama to show | September 07, 2010 at 04:44 PM

Valerie Jarrett and Obama have a shared ideology that surpasses any of the President's other advisors. They are in perfect lockstep. Without a counter-balance to Obama's extreme leftist impulses, it is going to lead to political catastrophe -- but Valerie will be the next White House Chief of Staff.

Posted By: hold on to your hat, you aint seen nothing yet | September 07, 2010 at 04:49 PM

Say what you will about Rahm. The guy is corrupt but he is a realist and tough as nails. Jarrett is nothing but a dreamer and Obama cultist. I hope she gets the job because it will spell doom for Barack Obama and the Democrats!

Gawd, I hope you're wrong. I'm a true-blue Dem and Obama supporter, yet Jarrett would be a disaster. Yes, she's thisclose to the President, but that's the problem. Obama needs someone who'll both kick ass and force the President out of his comfort zone. I'm talking bloody knuckles.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, has paid some $30,000 since 2004 for the endorsement of embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) in the context of a scheme that critics charge is unethical and amounts to Waters using her political station to benefit her family members.
boxer
According to the Washington Times, Waters “has turned political endorsements into a family business, using federal election laws to charge California candidates and political causes to include their names as her personal picks on a sample ballot, or ‘slate mailer,’ she sends to as many as 200,000 South Central Los Angeles voters.”
The slate mailer business, it turns out, is run by Waters’ daughter, Karen, via her public relations firm. Records show that Karen Waters’ firm has been paid more than $350,000 since 2004, and has billed a further $82,000 since California’s June primary, for its services in this regard.
It is a scheme that has been criticized by good governance groups including the Sunlight Foundation and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
The Sunlight Foundation, in a blog post last month, equated the scheme to Waters “selling” her endorsement and noted that the amounts of money being paid to Waters’ own campaign committee in exchange for her endorsement often exceed the federal limit applicable to campaign donations.

Shouldn't ole Valerie be spending her weekends and weeks fixing up those slums she made millions off of in Chicago?
Did anyone ever find out what happened to all those government grants she walked off with?

It is shocking and disturbing how incompetent this administration is given how well they and the media had portrayed them. Would you let this team run a satellite business office for a small company? Probably not; hopefully the Dems look to distance themselves and call for Obama to step aside for the party and the country. Are you kidding me Jarrett??? That was his pick to be US Senator?

Valery Jarrett? This has to be a joke. I mean, sure Rahm was a corrupt hack. But at least he had some skills. Jarrett is corrupt dimwitted hack who provides exactly no value-added. This is the woman who created the Truther Vanjones disaster. She's basically teats on a table. In other words, worthless.

Nothing - no one - will help the fraudster in the White House. America has seen this empty suite for what he is. An ambitious, self serving, Chicago pol, who's only claim to fame - is his silver tongue.

JR@5:01, JR, it sounds like you enjoy getting your welfare check and food stamps on a regular basis. The only CHANGE we have gotten is from bad to worse. I am assuming that you are a black person or a white person with little or no education. You wouldn't know bad if it defecated on you.

State Gains Would Give Redistricting Edge to G.O.P.
By MICHAEL COOPER
Published: September 7, 2010************
The midterm elections are being closely watched to determine whether Republicans will have a majority in Congress for the next two years. But it is the outcome of a lower-profile battle over state legislatures that could strengthen the Republican Party for a decade.
The latest on President Obama, his administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
Republicans are within reach of gaining control of eight or more chambers in state legislatures this fall, according to interviews with Republicans, Democrats and independent political analysts. That would give Republicans the power to draw more Congressional districts in their favor, since the expected gains come just as many legislatures will play a major role in the once-a-decade process of redrawing the boundaries of those districts.
Republicans said that they expect to win control of house chambers in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and of the Wisconsin State Senate, and said that they saw at least a dozen other states where they have a reasonable chance of winning control of legislative chambers.
Democrats acknowledge that they will be fighting to preserve their slim majorities in at least 10 chambers — including state senates in New York, New Hampshire and Nevada — but say that they see opportunities to gain control of chambers in four other states.
Redistricting, it has often been said, turns the traditional definition of democracy on its head: rather than allowing voters to choose their leaders, it allows leaders to choose their voters.
The new districts are supposed to reflect the population shifts measured by the census. In practice, though, officials in both parties often try to gerrymander districts to help themselves and their parties win more elections.